More on my fiction writing

January 23, 2014

The wrecking crew

I was stunned to read this story about the future of the historic Barrister Place in downtown Phoenix. The 1915 Hotel Jefferson, now city-owned, is one of the few remaining of what were once scores of beautiful old structures downtown.

The Republic's Dustin Gardiner writes, "The hotel, which featured 150 rooms, was decked out in mahogany, marble and expensive colonial furniture. It featured a coffee shop, a cigar stand, private suites and a rooftop garden with palm trees and a fountain."

As an EMT-Paramedic, I saw it in harder times, when it was an SRO which frequently required visits from emergency responders. Amid the human tragedy and shabbiness, it still retained good bones. Unfortunately the interior was later gutted. Now the city is looking for a buyer.

Here's what stunned me: "Councilman Jim Waring...questioned whether the city could get more money for the lot, in the heart of downtown Phoenix, if a buyer could demolish the building and start from scratch."

Fortunately, he didn't prevail. But behold what your city council risks becoming, Phoenix.

This photo from the mid-1960s shows a more human-scaled downtown with the Jefferson Hotel in the center. Just north is the Hotel Luhrs, a territorial-era gem that was thoughtlessly razed.

Permit me one diversion. That the building has stood vacant for more than three years after the police museum and city offices moved out is a sign of the astoundingly flaccid condition of business in Phoenix.

In a city such as Seattle, Portland, San Diego or Denver, such an elegant building would be an inviting place for startups. Not in Phoenix. The enchanting Luhrs building and tower are similarly largely empty (see comments for an update). The city's "economic strategy" seems to extend no further than thinking of restaurants or hotels. Maybe the Barrister could represent a modest step forward in the hands of the right developer and leasing crew.

Back to Waring. His contempt for historical preservation might have been understandable, if lamentable, in the 1960s. Now it is ignorant and potentially ruinous. We know the value of historic buildings and a walkable city (the building was once surrounded by other businesses).

The best "start from scratch" gets is a sterile CityScape; more likely is another parcel added to the miles of empty land in the core that once held buildings, many of them magnificent.

But his attitude is not a one-off. This recycling Republican pol — he spent seven years in the state Senate — is one of the faces of a dysfunctional Phoenix City Council that is unprecedented in the modern era. Another is "Better Call Sal" DiCiccio. Both have brought national tea partyism and worse to council chambers.

Council always had conservatives. It is where Barry Goldwater got his start in politics. More recently we saw Peggy Neely. But virtually all were committed to the good of the city, not the infestation of rigid ideology. Thus with Neely, for example, council pushed ahead with light rail (WBIYB).

On Waring's home page, his biography calls him a "fighter of wasteful government spending, a champion of job-creating policies and a steadfast proponent of tough-on-crime public safety policies." Translation: Opposition to the intelligent policies needed for the nation's sixth most populous city to become appropriately livable and competitive. "Job-creating policies" means tax cuts, not a forward leaning strategy. "Tough on crime" — here's Arizona, with its high incarceration rate and corrupt private-prison racket. Meanwhile, Phoenix languishes.

"Better Call Sal" wants to run against Greg Stanton to become mayor, hence his tip-of-the-hat to a strong downtown in his most recent inaugural speech. And if you believe that, I have a bridge Chris Christie will sell you. DiCiccio is another obstructionist with an ultra-right-wing agenda. His time-consuming speeches during council meetings are the stuff of legend.

For both, there is no price to be paid. Each represents a district of Phoenix's suburbs-within-the-city, comfortably red. A majority of the voters who vote believe public employees are enemies and all Phoenix needs is lower taxes. The city would benefit long-term by de-annexing much of these districts.

Councilman Bill "Fiscally Austere" Gates sometimes sides with these two. He probably wants statewide office. I know less about Thelda Williams, who also served on council in the late 1980s and 1990s, but she seems to be a light-rail backer. Michael Nowakowski is a bit of a mystery, lately in a kerfuffle with the mayor over subcommittee assignments.

They are offset by a progressive wing: Daniel Valenzuela, Kate Gallego and Laura Pastor. Mayor Stanton tilts that way, too, and can break a tie. Early soundings on Pastor are disappointing, while Gallego gets raves.

This polarization is making it difficult to get some of the most basic work of the city done — look at all the "interim" and "acting" officials — much less apply the vision necessary to save Phoenix.

It is difficult to imagine this council accomplishing the big lifts of the 2000s — light rail, convention center, ASU downtown, T-Gen, UA med school and biosciences campus, and downtown Sheraton.

But Phoenix is nowhere near where it needs to be. It faces a host of problems, huge lost opportunities, the giant sucking sound of the affluent suburbs, linear slums...you know the drill.

Is a change to the City Charter the answer, including more council members and a strong mayor? That, dear reader, is the topic for future posts.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

To tear down Barrister Place or the Luhrs Tower is and would be a tragedy, a desperate act of a souless city and its politicians grubbing for money and influence, and the final nail in any hope of a downtown worth visiting, let alone living in.

This is the first time in weeks that I've managed to get online, I think. My apologies for waltzing in and posting something only tangentially relevant, but I had wanted to comment on something seen in a previous thread.

It was asked why apartment building in Phoenix continues apace. The question supposed that this was mysterious and one answer suggested was that developers are simply on automatic pilot.

I think the answer is much simpler: because vacancy rates are low and heading lower, and multi-family housing is in demand after many families were displaced by foreclosures, and single-family home building has yet to recover.

According to a Summer 2013 nationwide survey by Cassidy Turley Commercial Real Estate Services, the year-to-date vacancy rate was just 5.4 percent, down from 11% in 2010 and forecast to continue lower. At the time of the report there were just 14,124 vacant units, which is considerably smaller than population growth: the report shows an increase in Metro Phoenix of 47,930 households in just the first half of 2013 and a population increase of 129,510. See p. 33:

Developers usually put their money where they expect a good return. After being bitten pretty badly during the housing crash I think they are considerably more prudent about building: the days of automatic pilot await the passage of many years if not decades.

I'm hoping that Laura Pastor will extend her election commitment to historic neighborhoods to include historic preservation of commercial structures. Time will tell.

Also Jon, the really amazing building that I'm sure you saw and was razed many years ago was the Luhrs Hotel. You'd think they would have understood the significance of the "Barrister"before they gutted the interior after the loss of the Luhrs.

This article has slightly different info on occupancy of the 2 Luhrs buildings.

"The 10-story Luhrs Building, built in 1924, is now fully leased. The 14-story Luhrs Tower, built in 1929, and the connecting Post Office Station have some vacancies, although Hansji declined to say how large."

I LOVE that building..hell, I'd bet a developer could take that building and the street level could be retail/restaurants, 2,3,4 and 5 could be two or 4 condos per floor, while 6th floor could be one huge, or two large penthouses!!
Just sayin........

Insightful article, but "behold what your city council risks becoming"? You're a little late to the party, Jon.

When the city coucil voted 7-1 in favor of the Circle-K expansion on 7th St/Roosevelt - despite city staff's recommendation against, opposition by a majority of the community & several neighborhood (& other) organizations - the message was clear.

A majority of our council is already OWNED by big corporate interests.

So, the answer to your question, "Is a change to the City Charter the answer, including more council members and a strong mayor?" -- is a resounding YES.

Late to the conversation, but Barrister Place being integral to historic deco downtown revitalization - with all the focus on re-inventing collaborative incubators and retro-boutique projects, a developer may see options of return on investment (not so much as tearing down, rebuilding sterile box).

And speaking of tea party councilmen, I witnessed their bogging down council business, by inviting 2-3 obstructionists to dominate agenda rudely/belligerently crying "letting the people speak" - prior to council business (since then, placated with 3 min each, at end public discussion - jez, poor moderates and the rest of us have to listen to such inanity - democracy yep). My, and other downtown advocates reason for attending this council meeting was agenda item re:Circle K's 7th and Roosevelt disappointing project, approved by those you pointed out in your blog.